Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saltwell Park/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:55, 26 April 2014.

Saltwell Park

 * Nominator(s): Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A second attempt at FAC for a beautiful Victorian park. The article is ready; it just needs the support of the community. I'm here to answer any queries raised... Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
I've got some concerns here, especially regarding referencing. Contrary to my habits, I've not closely audited reference formatting. On the whole, I have to oppose promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps most importantly, a substantial amount of this article is sourced to references that I'm not sure are independent, third-party sources. Carlton's book, published by the Gateshead Corporation.  The Gateshead Council, Gateshead Libraries, and NewcastleGateshead websites.  None of these appear to be independent sources, and cumulatively, they provide the bulk of the article's citations.
 * The Tyne & Wear SiteLines references are all dead links. Is/was this a reliable source?
 * Why is this a reliable source?
 * Why is this a reliable source, as it appears to be largely operated and edited by a single person?
 * The North East Film Archive reference is a dead link.
 * Why was the list of events discussed chosen for inclusion? Many of them seem like run-of-the-mill activities that would not be unusual for any park of comparable size, and are cited largely to the local newspaper.  Things like the Field of Remembrance that received national attention are one thing, but when the only coverage is in one or two Newcastle upon Tyne dailies...
 * The article's structure has some flaws. For example, there's a war memorial introduced in "Design and layout" that's actually never explicitly identified; I was able to puzzle out that it was the Boer War memorial only after reading the following section.
 * Prose is also a concern. I'm not attempting a comprehensive prose review at this time (nor is it my strong suit), but a few sentences stood out even on a quick read:
 * "This has been in situ since a tender to install a 4 acres (1.6 ha) lake with an island in the centre was accepted in August 1880."
 * "The park is also host to three well-used bowling greens, replete with their own pavilion (the Avenue Green Pavilion) and a rose garden."

Unfortunately, I'm going to give a weak oppose for the time being per Squeamish's sourcing concerns and the following wording issues:
 * "ha-ha" should probably be categorized as a type of wall. If I hadn't clicked the link, I'd have assumed it was just silly vandalism.
 * "adjacent, banked bedded planting" - awkward
 * "Caged animals are still kept in the north-east of the park in an area called "Pets Corner", where there are a peacock and peahen, pheasants, rabbits and guinea pigs[13] kept in a pair of aviaries built in 1880 and paid for by John Elliot, then chief constable of Gateshead.[8]" - awkwardly structured and a bit of a run-on
 * "Gateshead Council subsequently considered other sites for a second park, but it was discouraged by the high prices being asked by the estate owners at Redheugh and Shipcote." - What's being discouraged?
 * That whole paragraph contains somewhat stilted use of the passive voice.

I'll keep this on my watchlist in case you address my concerns. Tezero (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "The park is split into three sections – southern, central and northern areas – and the entire park is bordered by perimeter shrubs, plants and trees." - Why refer to "the park" and "the entire park" for two clauses in the same sentence?

Closing comment -- It's been almost two weeks since the original comments and opposition were registered, without any response or attempt to resolved the issues raised, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.